Munden v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably Lancaster v. State (2002), Dickeson v. State (1992)
30 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Public Broadcasting Service v. Network Project · Keeble v. United States · National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho · Johnson v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to the credit for presentence detention, we have recently set out the applicable test. In Hedge v. State, Wyo., 696 P.2d 51 (1985), we stated that it is within the trial court’s discretion to grant or deny credit for time served in presen-tence detention if (1) the detention is not due to the defendant’s indigency, and (2) the sum of the time spent in presentence detention plus the sentence given upon conviction does not exceed the maximum allowable sentence. See Jones v. State, Wyo., 602 P.2d 378 (1979). The State acknowledges that appellant was indigent and his presentence confinement was due to his indigency, and then wisely concedes that appellant must be given credit against his maximum sentences for his presentence detention. The record reflects appellant was arrested on January 17, 1984, and his judgment and sentence was filed on June 7, 1984. Accordingly, he should receive credit of 142 days against his maximum sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Renfro v. State““With regard to such credit being given against appellant’s minimum terms, we again decline to accept the proposition espoused by the public defender’s office and hold that ‘[t]here is no fundamental right to credit for presentence custody beyond that which will result in more jail time than that authorized by law.’ [Citation.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Heier v. State“"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice [[Image here]]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robinson v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.